Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Oct. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Actually, no.

I'm going to let Mr. Keddy go and then Mr. Kramp, and then back to you.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My point is very simple. It's not a big debatable item for me. I thought it was more convenient for everyone. The hours are still the same.

Ms. Jennings seems to think that she would sooner work four hours on Tuesday and leave Thursday morning open. I'm fine with that. I do think we're constraining ourselves and we're expecting to do a lot of work in a very short period of time, to report it back to the House. Obviously, if there's no consideration given to the clerk, the staff, and to everyone else who works in this place, then that's fine with me. I'm happy with the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

If it were Monday morning, I would understand, certainly, not wanting to be back here, but with its being Monday afternoon, my thought is that this is a lot of work for the clerk at the end. The earlier we can finish up the better. Why wait until the eleventh hour? Let's come in Monday afternoon. Potentially, we can do the four hours on Tuesday, too. If we happen to be done, wonderful. If not, and if it goes on a little bit further, the extra day is certainly going to be a bonus for our clerks and staff in preparation.

I can't see any reason why we can't be back here for Monday afternoon and then go on to the Tuesday as well without trying to crunch everything in at the very end, in case we have a situation.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I am so appreciative of the concern that Mr. Keddy and Mr. Kramp have expressed about our support staff, including the clerk. In fact, in part that was the motivation for my suggestion.

As Mr. Comartin pointed out, given that we have 24 hours in order to bring amendments, if we go to clause-by-clause on Monday, the 19th, whether it's in the morning, the afternoon, or the evening, that will require the clerk's very possibly working over the weekend, whereas if we only begin our clause-by-clause on the Tuesday, the 20th, in the morning, that will allow the clerk the entire business day of Monday, the 19th, in order to do the preparatory work so that the committee can in fact begin clause-by-clause on the morning of the 20th.

However, I do take note of this serious concern. I share it, and as a result of that, given that the committee appears to be in favour of attempting to do as much clause-by-clause at the front end in terms of the earlier date rather than the later date, I would propose changing my proposal so that this committee would begin clause-by-clause on Tuesday, November 20, at 9 o'clock, would sit until 1 o'clock on the same day, and would resume clause-by-clause again on Tuesday, November 20, at 3:30 in the afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

At this point we have a motion from.... Just give me a minute here to clarify where we stand, because you've actually tried to move a motion, and now you're suggesting another one.

In Mr. Keddy's motion, if I understand it, he had moved to meet on Monday, the 19th, from 3:30 to 5:30 to deal with clause-by-clause. Based on his comments, it sounds as though he's withdrawn that.

Based on that, you can now move your motion, if, Mr. Keddy, that is correct. I don't want to speak for you.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

As long as we get the hours in.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I therefore move that the committee begin its clause-by-clause on Tuesday, November 20, at nine o'clock in the morning until one o'clock in the afternoon. If clause-by-clause is not completed, we will continue clause-by-clause on Wednesday, November 21, at 3:30 in the afternoon and will sit until the clause-by-clause is finished. So there's no end time on the Wednesday. We sit until we complete clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Just to clarify, Ms. Jennings, obviously, if we finish clause-by-clause on November 20, by one o'clock in the afternoon, you wouldn't suggest that we meet for no reason on--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Of course not. That's why I said should clause-by-clause not be finished Tuesday, November 20, at one o'clock, the committee would resume clause-by-clause at 3:30 on Wednesday, the 21st.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Ménard.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Ms. Jennings gets more reasonable with age. Ms. Jennings, I recall how feisty you were the first time I met you in the House.

[An Hon. Member]

She was in power then!

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Where are you going with this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

True, she was in power.

I think that Ms. Jennings' proposal is reasonable in a number of respects. We will start on Monday, we will continue on Wednesday and we will sleep the sleep of the just only when we have passed all the amendments and the bill itself. There are advantages to that. First, support staff like our legislative clerk will be able to get the translations done, and everything else that is required for the Chair to be able to table the report in the House on Friday. That will certainly require dynamic intellects and energy, but we all have plenty of those, I am sure. I agree with the proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

I think that should close it. The time that has been suggested for starting clause-by-clause, having from nine to one on Tuesday, is four hours. I would imagine that we would have clause-by-clause finished within four hours. I cannot contemplate a scenario where we wouldn't have finished clause-by-clause on this bill in four hours.

[A voice]

I can.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Then we have 3:30 to 5:30 scheduled for clause-by-clause if necessary on Wednesday.

I do not agree with putting something open-ended in here. If we can't finish clause-by-clause within six hours on this bill, then there's something wrong.

Ms. Jennings originally said nine to one if necessary on Tuesday, and then 3:30 to 5:30 on Wednesday. I would be in agreement with that, but we are getting a little carried away with how long it would take to do clause-by-clause on this bill. What I would propose is that we do nine to one on Tuesday, if necessary, and 3:30 to 5:30 on Wednesday--which is highly unlikely, but if necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

On the amendment to the motion, Mr. Comartin.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'll make two points.

Mr. Moore is ignoring the history of the creativity of the legal mind in this country if he thinks there is no way we can't stretch this beyond six hours. I will leave that. I'm supportive of Ms. Jennings.

The other point I would make, seriously, Mr. Chair, is I would ask either you or Mr. Moore to approach whoever is going to be the chair of the justice committee to not schedule the justice committee on Tuesday morning of that week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

That is a fair point. Mr. Moore will take that into consideration, I'm sure.

Monsieur Ménard, to finish.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Moore's logic would be impeccable if it did not overlook the fact that we make amendments. I do not think that it is reasonable. The bills that we have studied up to now were much less complex than Bill C-2 and we have never done the work with less than four to six hours at our disposal. The bill is 50 pages long, and we do not know all the amendments. How do we propose to get through this bill in four hours when we do not even know what all the amendments are going to be about?

The merit of Ms. Jennings' motion is that it foresees the possibility of amendments and of our needing more than four hours. That said, no one wants to sit in committee for the sake of sitting in committee. If we have finished on Tuesday, if we are all ready to pass it and to authorize the Chair to table the report, good for us! But let us face the possibility that there may be amendments, Mr. Chair. If so, the Prime Minister will just have to chill out a little and show some respect for the opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rick Dykstra]

Thank you.

Mr. Keddy, to the amendment.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

On the amendment, I support Mr. Moore. There is no reason we can't have the clause-by-clause done. However, the opposition obviously want to allow themselves an opportunity to filibuster. The clause-by-clause can go on forever and ever, and I just want to have that on the record.